What exactly do people mean when they throw this statement around as though it is an indisputable fact of existence? Are these words truly limited to the female body, or do they extend to the degradation of the female identity as a whole, encouraged as it is by a history of oppression?
Usually when making this argument, people mention that scientific studies show this hypothesis to be accurate, so let's delve right into it. What does science tell us?
Right, then. Now, let's see if you can tell me what these two little “factoids” have in common.
It seems that neither of them tell us why it is that these statistics have come to be what they are. They fail to answer questions such as, what is the cause of these differences? Are they in any way conditioned into existence by the environment in which these individuals grow up?
Clearly, there seem to be anatomical differences between what is termed “biological females” and “biological males.” But are these differences accentuated – exaggerated, even – by the way in which our society is organized?
The first statement delineated as “fact,” tells us that “biological men” tend to have particular characteristics that, for arbitrary reasons, have come to be the qualities that define physical strength. These qualities, however – as clearly stated – are supposedly incited by testosterone. Before we even question that claim, let us for a moment assume it is true.
The question remains: what exactly creates high levels of testosterone? Testosterone can be found in every human body. In biological males, it is produced by the testes. Doubtlessly, this could contribute to increased numbers. But could it really account for the overbearing difference that exists (in testosterone levels) between the binary sexes? Has it not, in fact, been shown that high levels of aggressiveness, libido (sex drive) and even confidence are directly related to said levels?
From the dawn of civilization, the majority of humans encouraged the aforementioned qualities in biological males. They were pushed to do dangerous tasks (like hunting animals for food), to be aggressive toward intruders, to have as many sexual partners as possible, etc. In today's society, the previous expectations have merely been transformed into other, very similar roles -- males are now expected to be confident and courageous, to refrain from showing emotions (unless it's anger), to be proud of their “physical prowess,” to be encouraged on their sexual promiscuity, among other things.
All the behavioral tendencies I just mentioned hold one thing in common: they increase levels of testosterone. It is curious how the very thing that is assumed to be the cause of increased physical strength in biological males (i.e. testosterone) is linked to exactly the sort of behavior that is encouraged in (and often forced upon) them – the same sort of behavior that increases these very particular hormonal levels.
But let us stop assuming the truthfulness of the initial claim that testosterone is entirely responsible for these differences. What about all other factors, such as those related to outside influence? Like males being told from the moment they can speak (and even beforehand) that they are capable of physical greatness, for example? What about how females are told in every way that they are lesser – that no matter what they do, they can never achieve the physical strength of males because males somehow are inherently superior in this sense? Is it not harder for someone to achieve a brawny complexion when they, say, are made to do less work in gym class every day? Or when they are told that playing sports and exercising should not be their main preoccupation – that other things matter more? What if the opposite is true and you are forced to play sports or exercise as a kid?
Furthermore, it doesn't appear to be coincidental in the slightest that these so-called “sex differences” are less and less the younger someone is. They only become pronounced as the years go on.
These social biases cannot possibly be eliminated from scientific studies, as no one can live outside these influences, which is why it is essential to consider them when pondering over these queries.
“Why?” you may be asking still. “And why does any of this matter?”
Because this is yet another example of a societal tool being used to degrade the female identity. Specifically, we see science being used under its “objectivity” veil in order to justify the status quo – the belief that women are weak and less than men.
It can have real, terrible effects upon the lives of individuals who are attempting to thrive through the female identity.
For example, Jazz Jennings, an outspoken, immensely talented trans girl, was not allowed to play on the girls' soccer team at her school, due to the fact that she is “technically a biological male” and thus “might have an advantage over her teammates.” Despite having attended practices, having been trained alongside girls and having been raised as a girl (because she is one), she was denied participation in games solely because of her assigned gender at birth. She's not a star athlete, she's not the strongest on the team, she just wants to be a part of what she rightfully deserves to be a part of, so why is this happening? Assuredly, there is some transphobia involved, but it is undeniable that the ingrained belief that biological females are physically lesser than males is behind this action (hence the claim that “it would be unfair to her teammates”) – an action that is nothing but another example of internalized sexist ideology.
This isn't the only case, of course. Countless women accept this and other such statements and circumstances merely because the societal tools we all praise, like science, tell them it is the undeniable, indisputable truth, and if anyone dares question it, they are considered a no-good, truth-denying radical.
Now, I want you to tell me -- is it radical, or reasonable, to question the nature of clearly biased statements? And should we not, therefore, put all our efforts into realizing the prejudiced nature of what is otherwise considered fact? Should we not question that which justifies the way in which we diminish the value of women in our society? Or should we be happy accepting “the way things are” – in other words, should we settle for being bystanders?
Your choice.
